Nearly all of the bestwriters and investigators are in agreement that no plane was a hoax -- and a number of good analysts who formerly believed this now realize it was
not true.

It would be an oversimplification to judge "9/11 truth" advocates for or against this theory by their support for other
claims regarding 9/11. But looking at other issues, good and bad, surrounding 9/11 truth activism does reveal patterns.

If you look at those who don't buy the "no plane" claims, it is generally those who are personally familiar with
the geography of the DC area, understand Peak Oil was a motivation, focus on the war games, and have shown an ability to engage in critical thinking to differentiate real research from crap
research. There are some sincere people who talk about war games and still believe "no plane," but those folks are generally not familiar with the geography of Arlington, and they absolutely
do not talk about the 90 foot wide impact hole (caused by the engines and the bulky parts of the wings), the fact that hundreds of people saw the plane, or the motivation to keep the 9/11 skeptics divided and discredited.

Those most familiar with the geography of Arlington County can see through the nonsense that the eyewitnesses should be
ignored (even as most of those who make this claim simultaneously argue that we should consider alleged eyewitness testimonies
that the Twin Towers were supposedly demolished). It's those unfamiliar with the geography who are still pushing this claim the hardest.

Who does and does not support "no plane" is not proof of what happened in Arlington County on 9/11, but it does show an
interesting pattern -- those who stress the most credible evidence tend to shy away from the "no plane" claim...